The Christadelphian May 1922, C.C. Walker

“This Corruptible”

This is Paul’s description of the bodily estate of the righteous resurrected, who in “the time of the dead” stand up for judgment and change into the divine nature. Of these Christ is “the first-fruits” (1 Cor. 15:53, 20). He was once in “this corruptible” flesh and blood estate, from which he needed physical cleansing just as much as his imperfect brethren. For God “hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). We set forth the apostolic phrase, “this corruptible,” as sufficient answer to brother Bell’s “railing accusation” against ourselves and W.J.Y. in The Shield for February, and in his support of the “clean flesh” heresy. It is satisfactory (negatively) to see him deliberately disown Dr. Thomas’ teaching in Elpis Israel. Thus, quoting Dr. Thomas, he says, “The flesh is invariably regarded as unclean.” And he immediately adds, “Yes, by Dr. Thomas, but not by God in the Bible.” Now Christadelphians know where brother Bell stands. Does God in the Bible regard “this corruptible” as “clean” in his sight? Far from it. Eliuphaz and Bildad spoke the truth concerning this, however wrongly they judged Job. “What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Behold he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water” (Job 15:14–16). “How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean which is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4). So also Job himself: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one” (14:4). Christ was “born of a woman”—“made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Partaking thus of the flesh, he was “this corruptible,” though in character sinless, and so needed cleansing and redemption as much as his brethren. And as concerning the woman, we read of “the days of her purification according to the law of Moses” (Luke 2:22). If the flesh be “clean” why should a woman having born a man-child be “unclean seven days”? (Lev. 12:2). And why should the child be circumcised the eighth day, and the mother then continue unclean another thirty-three days “until the days of her purifying be fulfilled”? What is circumcision but the drastic repudiation of this so-called “clean” flesh?

As to Elpis Israel, if brother Bell will specify wherein he supposes we have “doctored it by amendment” in this particular, we will meet his accusation. Meanwhile the prefaces to the editions of 1903 et seq. specify under “Publisher’s Notes” just what slight emendations and changes have been made.

As to hamartia, it means sin, and not sin-offering; and we speak from a careful comparison of all the passages in the N.T. and the LXX. In all the 170 or more occurrences in the N.T. it is never rendered sin-offering. W.J.Y. is not guilty of “wanton perversion of facts”! Nor is he, because of that “wantonness,” “adopted as an authority by the editor of The Christadelphian”! All this is mere raillery, unworthy of a brother. W.J.Y. can speak for himself. This editor is very thankful for his work, which he “proves” and “holds fast” as “good.” It is a grief to find it antagonised in this fashion.